Battle over development near sacred Indian sites takes new twist

CLOVER VALLEY Foes may support development near sacred Indian sites

Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, October 10, 2007

A referendum repealing the plan to build 558 homes around dozens of sacred Indian sites in a pastoral valley near Sacramento is headed for the Feb. 5 ballot - but proponents of the referendum are already saying they hope to campaign against it.

That's the latest twist in an 8-year-old battle that has environmentalists, tribal leaders, politicians and a developer fighting over how to best use one of the most pristine stretches of land in the burgeoning suburban sprawl of the Sierra foothills - a 2-mile-long spread of oak-studded hills known as Clover Valley.

The battle has at times had local Indians allied with no one, then the environmentalists, and then the developer, as they decide how to acquire part of the valley in what could be the largest purchase of sacred tribal land ever accomplished in Northern California by Native Americans.

Leaders of the Save Clover Valley Coalition, which gathered the signatures qualifying the referendum, said this week that if developer Rick Massie makes two adjustments to minimize his impact on the land, they will champion his housing plan instead of opposing it.

President Trump addresses nation after mass shooting at Florida SchoolWhite House

First, they want him to reduce a planned road by half and move it to the north end of the valley in Rocklin (Placer County). Then they want signed assurance that Massie will honor his verbal agreement to sell much of the Clover Valley floor to the United Auburn Indian Community, whose tribe settled the valley 7,000 years ago.

The coalition voiced its offer at a Rocklin City Council meeting Tuesday night, but it was quickly rejected. Saying their only choice was to scrap Massie's entire development plan or place the coalition's referendum on the ballot, the council voted 4-0 for the latter.

If Massie, the coalition or the tribe want to craft any new deals before Feb. 5 they are free to try, the council said. But as it is now, the voters will decide.

"It's very convoluted," said Councilman Scott Yuill. "I have a great deal of respect for everyone on all sides. But the bottom line is the valley is privately owned, and if you want to save it for public use you have to buy it. Failing that, this development plan we already approved is the best compromise."

Duane Wilson, a coalition leader, said Massie's plan will include enough open space to satisfy his coalition's desire to use the valley as a park - if he shrinks the width of the cross-valley road from 80 feet to 40 feet and sells the lots he says he will to the tribe.

Massie, however, said his plan is fine, and that he may have to go back to a bigger development plan if the referendum passes. The tribe, meanwhile, doesn't like the coalition interfering.

"It's arrogance, the same old notion that Indians can't look out for themselves," said tribal spokesman Doug Elmets.

Wilson countered that the tribe wouldn't have known about the sacred sites if his coalition hadn't raised its concerns eight years ago.